zlacker

>>LinuxB+(OP)
The biggest takeaway here for me is that we collectively achieved something previously considered impossible: by making different behavioral choices, as a species, we achieved the largest cut in CO2 emissions in 75 years.

It's tragic that only the threat of a deadly disease could compel such a change, but perhaps we may find other levers to help us achieve such widespread beneficial changes in the future?

>>just_s+nm
We did not simply make "behavioral choices". Whole swathes of humanity were ordered indoors! It was achieved at untold cost (actually, much greater than the trillions of dollars that have been given away already by governments) that will be paid by generations to come. Only people who were lucky to hold a job that wasn't affected made a conscious decision to cut down.

I am willing to bet that come 2022 or so, emissions will rebound and exceed peaks as people 'catch up' on travel, including simply visiting near and dear ones, that they have missed out on.

>>rmk+AD
> It was achieved at untold cost

This is just evidence of what we already know: our current society is unsustainable.

> will be paid by generations to come

I think you're pretty optimistic about how the future will develop given that we have not only just demonstrated our society is unsustainable, but that we are not capable of making serious progress towards a sustainable society.

Large portions of are planet are soon to become uninhabitable by humans. Major disruptions in our food supply are likely not that far off. The idea that we need to get back to "business as usual" means these things are all the more certain.

>>baron_+C31
In ecological terms, we are an invasive species without a predator multiplying exponentially.

We either accept reality and live and adapt to the limits imposed by nature or prepare to live in permanent war for resources.

>>29athr+o91
Humans tend to stop multiplying exponentially, though.

>>saagar+Qc1
So do rats with abundant food in an enclosed environment, it doesn’t end well. https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1962-calhoun.pdf

Which isn’t to say the same rules apply to humans, but it’s also critical to get this right.

>>Retric+Qj1
No not that, there's a very strong negative correlation between birth rate and development. The more a society develops, the lower its birth rate. Down to well below replacement rate of 2.1, for instance in the US (1.7), Canada (1.5), Japan (1.42), Finland (1.41). Without immigration those populations would dwindle in just a few generations. [1]

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Connection-between-the-h...

>>arctic+0M1
This is not a law of nature, it is history as it unfolded in the twentieth century. We don't know if that'll continue to hold or not.

>>mola+rP1
Yea, but it’s still an open question when or if this stabilizes. A global population of between something like 100 million to 10 billion could sustain an advanced technical society capable of innovation. But, where slowly oscillating between say 1 and 2 billion people would be fine, regular massive population crashes could represent a great filter which generally prevents interstellar civilizations.